Laughter in Medina/Ravaging Tischendorff/Radio Free Geneva on a Mega DL

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:37

Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. Here is what we're doing today. We're starting at an odd time.

00:43

Here's the game plan. First 15 minutes response to the breaking news today in the great evangelical cover -up, the

00:52

Ergin -Kanner scandal continues, the mythology grows. Then hopefully around the half hour mark,

01:00

I wanted to spend about half an hour talking about the debate coming up next week between myself and Chris Pinto, and specifically on the issues of Codex Sinaiticus and related materials.

01:14

On my ride this morning, I was listening to Mr. Pinto, and I want to play some comments by him.

01:19

So you all have some context upon which to understand why I've even been investing this time and what limited time

01:26

I've had, unfortunately, in this particular subject, because a lot of folks have wondered. I don't even know what the issue is, and I want to introduce you to it so you can see why this is very important and why it needs to be discussed.

01:39

Then at the top of the hour, we'll fire up the Radio Free Geneva theme and launch into my review of Pastor Dr.

01:49

Steve Gaines' sermon on the sovereignty of God from September of this year, because it represents a very common view, a synergistic view, that many people hold and adopt, and we want to examine it.

02:02

I think that would be useful to do today. Tomorrow on the program, one more hour where we will expand upon the

02:09

Cantor material. I'll be responding to some of the mythology being spun by Peter Lumpkins and Timothy Rogers and others.

02:17

We are watching the very same kind of creation of mythology around Eric and Cantor that took place around Joseph Smith.

02:28

The evidence against Eric and Cantor is so much clearer and so much more compelling than anything we have against Joseph Smith, and yet what we're seeing here in the activities of these individuals is the cultic mindset that allows you to believe anything as long as you want to believe it.

02:45

It is educational, it's sad, it should not be found amongst Christians, but that's what we are observing.

02:52

So we'll do that tomorrow. And then on Thursday, big program, probably good that we're doing this through Google Hangouts or something like that, because I don't think our server could handle it.

03:03

But three guests on the program on Thursday, they approached me, well actually

03:10

Ivy Connolly approached me, and then Votie Balcom approached me and said, we would really like to talk about this, and I'm just sort of the facilitator, okay, it's sort of unusual.

03:21

I'm the facilitator for the discussion, but I'll be facilitating the discussion between Votie Balcom, Ivy Connolly, and Shailene in light of the controversy that broke out this week on the subject of Christian rap.

03:35

And so that'll be on Thursday, I've put that information on the website.

03:41

So first and foremost, December 3rd, 2013, this is from the, well, it says

03:50

Bruton -Parker College calls Kanner as president. Controversial educator determined to raise the college's profile.

03:58

On Monday evening the Board of Trustees voted unanimously, unanimously I note, to elect Dr. Ernie Kanner as president of Bruton -Parker

04:05

College. Bruton -Parker is one of three colleges affiliated with the Georgia Baptist Conventions. This is a

04:10

Southern Baptist issue once again. Be nice if there would be some folks in the

04:16

Southern Baptist Convention of larger name that would stand up and say, whoa! Anyway, reading down through the, here's the story that's given.

04:27

Born in Stockholm, Sweden in 1966, Kanner is the oldest son of a devout Turkish Muslim leader. The family immigrated to the

04:34

United States first in 1969 and settled in central Ohio. Through the persistence of a high school friend,

04:39

Kanner converted to Christianity, became a minister shortly thereafter. He is a 1984 graduate of Gahanna Lincoln High School, and then it gives the rest of his educational accomplishments.

04:48

May I point something out just in passing? The irony here is amazing.

04:58

Ernie Kanner is currently flaunting direct biblical commands. We shouldn't expect that the church he's currently a part of, we'll assume believing, would be relevant to that because the pastor of that church is a board member of Arlington Baptist College.

05:15

Any church worth its salt would have this man under discipline. He is rejecting the clear biblical command that Christians are not to sue

05:25

Christians. Now, Peter Lumpkin says, well, maybe he doesn't consider him a Christian. That's nice. Thankfully, most of us have not adopted

05:32

Ernie Kanner as the Holy Spirit quite yet, and recognize that the man who's being sued is a

05:39

Southern Baptist pastor in good standing with his church. So it's not up to Ernie Kanner as to who he considers to be a

05:46

Christian or not a Christian. The reality is he is breaking biblical commands.

05:52

It is clear and plain, and those defending him are just as guilty as he is in their rejection of those biblical parameters.

06:01

But what is he suing over? He's suing over the Marine video. And what do the

06:07

Marine videos contain? A completely different story than what has now been put out by Bruton Parker College.

06:14

Isn't that amazing? He's trying to copyright and defend a copyright on lies, and his own story as the new president of Bruton Parker College proves it.

06:26

His defenders are so daft and so blind that they can't even see it. Who was the first people?

06:33

Who were the first people who came along and said, excuse me, but it's sort of a lie to say he came here in 1978 and 1979.

06:40

They're just a bunch of bloggers. They don't know what they're talking about until we proved it legally. And now the story has changed.

06:46

And now the mythology that's growing on the wall, he's always said that. Really? That's why we can show video clip after video clip of him saying otherwise?

06:57

Well, those are only allegedly. In fact, let me give you the quote. In 2010,

07:03

Kanner was embroiled in controversy when religious bloggers accused him of embellishing his background as a former

07:10

Muslim -turned -Christian, not just embellishing, how about lying about. When those bloggers began uploading videos allegedly of Kanner, Liberty University formed a committee to investigate the charges.

07:22

Though the committee found evidence of Kanner deliberately lying, he stepped down as dean, though he continued as a full -time professor until he went to Arlington.

07:29

Well, there's a soft sell. But is this, are we watching? And we are because Lumpkins is already doing this.

07:36

Are we watching the spin of history? The rewrite of history? Are these people seriously saying that the person in the videos is not

07:47

Ergin Kanner? It's somebody else? That these have been photo -movied or something?

07:55

Really? Where's the evidence of this? In fact, why would he be fighting over copyright issues over the

08:05

Marine videos if that ain't him? But he's lying in those videos, as this document then therefore proves.

08:13

So could someone explain this to me? I mean, the lie upon lie upon lie upon lie eventually becomes so absurd that it's difficult to even understand how anybody makes heads or tails out of all this.

08:31

But when I gave my presentation, I didn't use the Marine videos. Could have. I had plenty of other videos that had the same material in it.

08:38

And one of the main videos I used right at the beginning shows a man that I think is

08:44

Ergin Kanner because he's preaching at Thomas Road Baptist Church, and that looks like Jerry Falwell behind him, saying the same things, which this document calls lies because he repeated the lie, the central lie,

09:03

I always lived in majority Muslim countries. I thought you hated me. I didn't know a thing about Christians.

09:09

I learned English watching Andy Griffith. I came here in 1978, and we came here to convert you.

09:16

Oh, well, his parents were already divorced by then, and he'd been living here growing up in central

09:22

Ohio. This document proves we've been right all along. And his supporters, blind bats as they are, just go, well, whatever he tells us, we believe.

09:35

It's amazing. Can anybody else see this? Why are there not legions of Southern Baptist pastors standing up and saying, hey, well, wait a minute, you are dragging our entire convention through the mud here.

09:48

It's time to wake up. Why is this? Uploading videos allegedly of Kanner.

10:00

I'd like to know what allegedly means. Is that Kanner in the

10:05

Marines video? If it's not, then why are you suing over him? If it is, saying the same things there that you're saying in the other videos that the rest of us have uploaded.

10:15

I mean, this is why these people will never, ever, ever, ever expose themselves to direct cross -examination by anyone like me.

10:24

They can't. They would collapse in a quivering heap under any meaningful cross -examination at all.

10:34

The only way they can do it is the way Lumpy does it. Lumpkins does it by just writing pages of irrelevant verbiage that never deal with the facts of the matter at all.

10:46

That's just the only, once you nail them down, you know you're going to get a book back about something completely other than what you were talking about, replete with numerous insults and all the other ad hominem that he's an expert at.

11:00

And the twisting of words and changing of context and all that kind of stuff. It goes on, one of the most popular speakers on the evangelical circuit,

11:08

Kanter, speaks at Christian youth camps and conferences, as well as conventions and academic gatherings. His younger brother,

11:14

Dr. Emir Kanter, is president of Truett McConnell College in Cleveland, Georgia. Together, the brothers have written numerous books on world religions, including Unveiling Islam, which won the gold medallion award in evangelical publishing in 2003, and I might add, continues to contain references that no one could possibly ever find in the

11:28

Hadith. That's why I recently asked Peter Lumpkins, what exactly is Hadith 2425? And of course, when

11:33

I said, well, you tell him what Hadith 2425 is, and he said, no. That's because he doesn't know, of course, because he lacks the honesty to just simply go,

11:43

OK, you're right about that. Saying Hadith something is wrong.

11:49

It demonstrates that the Kanters don't do first level research in Islam.

11:56

You're right about that. They do not even have the integrity to admit the most obvious facts of the matter.

12:04

They will defend any little thing. But here is, this for me, is the absolutely most amazing part of this document.

12:18

And it's online, by the way, you just go to bpc .edu, www .bpc .edu

12:25

slash presidential search slash Kanter press release at HTML. It is the last paragraph.

12:35

Another trustee summarized the vote. We didn't consider Dr. Kanter in spite of the attacks. We elected him because of them.

12:43

He has endured relentless and pagan attacks like a warrior. We need a warrior as our next president.

12:56

Wow. What do you even say to such deception? I mean,

13:03

I'm used to that kind of deception when people defend Joseph Smith. But these people are supposed to be

13:09

Christians. And the facts are so obvious, so beyond question, that the only thing keeping people defending him is simple dishonesty and the good old boys club.

13:23

It's politics, power, has nothing to do with truth at all. And now all of us, including, and this is simply citation of fact, the single most active

13:38

English speaking apologist to Muslims in the world, that's me. I didn't go looking for that.

13:44

I didn't want that. But you look out there right now and ask yourself a simple question.

13:51

Who? Who has done more debates with Muslim apologists in the past seven years in the

14:00

English language in the world than me? And with more of the leaders, with the

14:08

Shabbir Ali's and Yusuf Ismail's and people like that? Who? Who else could say they have debated inside a mosque in South Africa?

14:18

University of Johannesburg, University of Pretoria, inside the mosque in Toronto, inside the

14:24

East London mosque, the largest mosque in Europe, one week after the attacks on Benghazi?

14:29

Who was debating a Muslim on whether the Bible predicts Muhammad one week after the Benghazi attacks in the

14:35

East London mosque? That was me. And this trustee evidently thinks

14:44

I am a pagan. Now we know exactly where that comes from. And the only thing I can hope and pray for is that this trustee knows nothing about my presentations, knows nothing about the facts, has only heard

14:55

Kanner's side of the story. And I can just see Kanner is a good speaker. And I'm sure he put his head down and I'm sure he got his voice low and he talked about how he and his brother have suffered so much and we knew this was coming and, you know, this is how they treat people who leave the faith.

15:11

Maybe that's all he's heard. I don't know. I hope so. Doesn't relieve him of his responsibility or hers,

15:18

I don't know. Because the only other trustee that cited, well, two of them, trustee

15:25

Linda Yon and Board of Trustees Chairman Reverend Bucky Kennedy. I don't know what they knew.

15:34

But I know where the pagan term comes from. And that comes from Kanner. Remember what he said to the guy who showed up at his talk wearing the, what is it,

15:44

ETH 2425 t -shirt? What do you call him? Godless pagan. Godless pagan.

15:52

And so that's what Ergin Kanner thinks of anyone who opposes him.

15:57

Even if we happen to be the ones doing the very things he cannot do but has lied and claimed to do. The level of deception illustrated in this document is shocking.

16:12

Absolutely shocking. We'll have more to say about that tomorrow, especially as we review the spinning of mythology by Peter Lumpkins and Mr.

16:22

Rogers. The spinning of a whole, you know, let's just change history.

16:28

Let's dissect everything down to the point where nothing makes sense. Let's not worry about the context in which

16:37

Ergin Kanner spoke. Let's not worry about the fact that he was spinning a whole tale. You have to look at the whole thing and ask, is it true?

16:43

No, no, no, no, no. That's impossible because it's obvious to any rational person it wasn't true. So we need to come up with a new way of doing things.

16:50

And that's what they're doing. And it's working. And part of the reason it's working is that there are a lot of people out there that know, but they will not do anything about Ergin Kanner.

17:02

I just won't be troubled. I won't be troubled. So there you go.

17:08

There you go. Amazing, sad, but that's the way it is.

17:15

Someone on Twitter had said, sad to see they cite the controversy as a specific reason for choosing him.

17:24

And I wrote back, yeah, it's really sad. And he responded back, it feels like a

17:30

Christian version of the twilight zone sometimes. And my response to him was, yeah, and I want to get out of it. I mean, it's just the laughter you hear, my friends, is from Medina.

17:43

Because you see, the Muslims know. The Muslims are watching. They know

17:49

Kanner has lied. They know Kanner is untruthful.

17:57

And they are watching this, and they're just laughing. What else can they do?

18:02

What else would you expect them to do? Here is an entire Christian college with all this evidence demonstrating that this man is dishonest.

18:11

He has made claims that were untrue. He will not admit them. And what does the college do?

18:17

I think we want him as president, because he's a warrior.

18:23

Excuse me, since when do warriors hide behind attorneys and silence?

18:31

Mr. Trustee, if you think this man's a warrior, then why don't you ask him to meet me in battle on your campus?

18:40

I'll debate him. Give me an hour to make my presentation on the honesty and integrity of Ergin Kanner.

18:49

Give me a digital projector and a sound system. Give me one hour.

18:55

I'll hardly have to say a word. All I've got to do is just let the man talk for himself.

19:02

Warriors do not hide behind attorneys. Warriors do not hide behind silence.

19:13

That man thinks he's a warrior, then have him meet me. He won't do it, and everybody knows it.

19:21

Everybody knows it. That's not a warrior. That's a coward. More to come.

19:30

You're standing, you're sitting there looking like you want to say something. I was just wondering, it occurred to me this morning, I wonder if, looking at God's providence in all of this, if Ergin Kanner has not single -handedly rolled over the underbelly that is in the

19:44

Christian education system in this country, and showing us all how corrupt it is. Well, it's not just Christian education.

19:51

It's the whole political structure. It's the whole political structure, and now it's the political structure specifically at the

19:57

Southern Baptist Convention. I mean, he has the support of big names. Paige Patterson supports him, and if you've got

20:03

Patterson's support, there you go. Screams corruption.

20:09

Every which way you look at it. It just screams it. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. It's a good old boys' network. I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine.

20:15

We all keep our mouths shut, and we all just get along. Yep. That's exactly what's going on.

20:21

That's exactly what's going on. Amazing. Absolutely.

20:27

Positive. Positively. Amazing. You'll see more, because obviously he is being emboldened by this.

20:34

He will be emboldened by this move, and what he's doing with Jason Smathers and Mr.

20:43

Autry and others, he's going to be emboldened to do against others. Now eventually, eventually in God's providence, if he goes that way, if he becomes completely out of control, it will come back.

21:00

Eventually justice will be done. That may be, unfortunately it may not be in this life, but as I've said before, if he comes after me, all of this will become part of the public record, and everybody will know about it.

21:23

Everybody will know about it, and I still think that there are people who are holding him in, because I think if it was up to him, you bet he'd be going full barrel.

21:38

But I think there's other people who realize we don't want that. We don't want that, because you see, there have been people who've known about Cantor for a long time.

21:47

Why do you really think that debate was scuttled by the Cantor side in 2006?

21:54

Let me just tell the powers that be, I know who ordered that. I know.

22:02

And maybe those people will need to get involved in the lawsuit too, because they knew about Cantor beforehand, and it continued to promote him.

22:11

Maybe they need to be deposed. I know where that order came from. I know exactly how it was done internally.

22:19

Yeah, I do. Just keep that in mind.

22:25

Just keep that in mind. Oh my. All right, anyways, we're running out of time.

22:30

I've already gone seven minutes over, and I apologize. I want to, this is going to be really hard to just completely shift gears like this, especially for me.

22:44

But put the clutch in, clear your mind, and let's shift gears. I need to, very briefly, and we may be a little bit late getting started, and we may have to go a little bit late, we'll see.

22:56

But they don't turn the lights out here at a certain time, so we can do what we need to do. Next, I think it's

23:03

Thursday? Is Thursday the 11th? Wednesday. Wednesday? How can that be?

23:11

It must be during the day then. Yeah, it's got to be during the day. Well, I'm supposed to do a debate, I don't even know when, on December 11th with Mr.

23:19

Chris Pinto on the Wheat and the Tares documentary, and his theory that Codex Sinaiticus is a modern invention and that it is the chief means by which the

23:30

Bible has been attacked in the modern day. And so,

23:38

I was listening to a CD set that Chris Pinto put out after he put out the documentary, and it put into a brief space exactly what

23:51

I wanted to address. Now, let me just lay things out here. The idea, from Mr.

23:57

Pinto's perspective, is that a man by the name of Simonides, Constantine Simonides, is the actual author of Codex Sinaiticus.

24:08

He wrote it primarily in 1840, and once Sinaiticus was published, he recognized it was his own work, 19 years later, and for a few years there was a war in the newspapers in England going back and forth, and people taking various sides, and then

24:26

Simonides sort of disappeared. And most people don't know anything about this since then, because the vast consensus of scholarly opinion has been that Simonides was making things up.

24:40

And what Mr. Pinto has done is he's resurrected the Simonides stuff, what he does is he makes Tischendorf look as bad as humanly possible, just grossly biased, unfair.

24:49

To call this thing a documentary is laughable. It is not. It's propaganda, pure and simple, there's no question about it, watch it yourself.

24:56

Other people watch the same thing. It's three stinking hours long. It took three hours. I mean, this is longer than Lord of the

25:01

Rings, for crying out loud. I stole that from Mr. Butler. But it's true.

25:07

It's just amazing. And it's filled with all this stuff about the

25:17

Jesuits, the Jesuits are behind everything. Except when it comes to this, because the Jesuits weren't behind Simonides.

25:22

It gets really iffy at this point, and really unclear. But the idea is that Simonides wrote it, it was supposed to be a gift for a powerful leader, but then someone died, and so he didn't really finish things up, and someone else said, well, we're going to send this to the library at St.

25:46

Catherine's, and then years later, he sees it, and it's been altered and changed and artificially aged, and don't know by whom or don't know why.

25:58

But it had been bound, and now it was unbound, and all this stuff is going on, and we don't really know why it was, but this is what

26:07

Tischendorf finds, and it's what he presents to the world as an ancient manuscript from actually the fourth century, but it's actually from 1840, and so, etc.,

26:19

etc. That's what the whole thing's about. Now, from my perspective, what we're being told is a 19 -year -old produced a manuscript with numerous unique readings in both the

26:32

Old and New Testaments, many of which would have been utterly unknown to him, and yet match later manuscripts finds in the papyri.

26:43

This is the fatal flaw. It is the impossibility of the entire theory, is that there are far too many readings where Codex Sinaiticus anticipates the papyri finds that would not be made for another 90 years.

27:03

It demonstrates a source text type that could not have been available to Simonides.

27:13

Just couldn't have been. Any meaningful examination of the text itself shows this to be the case.

27:21

So what we're being asked to believe is that Sinaiticus is an evil manuscript that Rome has used to destroy people's belief in Sola Scriptura in the

27:32

Bible, and that Sinaiticus is the bullet that has been used to attack

27:40

Sola Scriptura. Now, news to me, news to the guy that's out there debating the

27:46

Bart Ehrmans and the John Dominic Crossings and the Marcus Borgs and the people like that, and the

27:52

Roman Catholics, the Jesuit scholar Mitch Packwood, news to me, I haven't seen

27:59

Mr. Pinto doing those things, but that's what we're being told.

28:05

So listen to the beginning of this presentation, because what they do is they depend upon a

28:12

BBC documentary. Now folks, let me just tell you something, you don't trust the BBC as far as you can throw them.

28:18

They are a biased, ridiculously shallow, anti -Christian organization. You don't take them seriously, especially when it comes to stuff like this.

28:27

They are going to spin everything in the most amazing way.

28:37

And yet the primary evidence that Chris Pinto presents of how damaging

28:43

Sinaiticus has been is a BBC documentary, and the primary thing is put upon not some scholar, but the narrator for crying out loud.

28:56

It's amazing. But let's listen to it. Here's the beginning of the

29:03

CD presentation. In the year 1859, a German scholar named

29:09

Konstantin von Tischendorf emerged from an ancient monastery with a manuscript that would become known as the oldest complete

29:18

Bible ever found. It was named the Codex Sinaiticus.

29:25

A vast majority of what modern scholars believe about the Bible today comes from the examination of this particular manuscript.

29:35

By the way, that's just unbalanced. That's unbalanced.

29:41

This is not true. I mean, Sinaiticus is important, and Sinaiticus may have been overblown by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, but the problem is

29:50

Mr. Pinto and folks like him are 100 years behind in scholarly study.

29:57

The papyri have eclipsed Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. They're very important, but they are important as a link in a much longer and more ancient chain.

30:07

So, I'm sorry, that's just, you cannot take what this alleged documentary says and not question the scholarship that lies behind it, because it's just really lacking.

30:20

The British Library has claimed it is the ancestor of all the Bibles in the world.

30:28

But what impact has it had on the world and the Church? In fact, it might be said that whenever someone claims that the

30:38

Bible cannot be the inspired or inerrant Word of God, they will almost always point to Codex Sinaiticus as the reason why.

30:51

I've never had that happen, and I've done far more debates than Chris Pinto ever has.

30:58

I've never had that happen. In fact, Sinaiticus is on my side. Sinaiticus demonstrates the continuity of the later text with the text in the 4th century, which becomes the bridge into the 3rd century, into the 2nd century, into the papyri.

31:13

And in fact, the amazing thing to me is, these folks will always quote Tischendorf and his story of finding

31:19

Sinaiticus, but they won't mention that the book they're quoting from is a book where Tischendorf defends a conservative view of the dating of the

31:27

Gospels, their inspiration and accuracy, and from Tischendorf's perspective, Sinaiticus is the silver bullet in the gun against German rationalism.

31:37

Now they will say he was a part of that movement, but the reality is the book they're quoting from is directly against that movement, and he sees

31:44

Sinaiticus in that way. I use Sinaiticus all the time as my primary example of where the

31:50

Muslims are wrong in their creative ideas concerning the later textual corruption in the

31:56

New Testament. So, I don't know where he's getting this, no citations are given, but it's just simply wrong, and if he's run into folks who have, out of ignorance, come to that conclusion, well, deal with the ignorance, don't go with it.

32:11

Don't run with the ignorance, refute it. That's one of the things that's so frustrating about this. The time and the effort and the money that went into this that could have been used in such a positive way.

32:22

Complete misfire. Complete misfire. Yet, what is typically unknown is that shortly after Constantine von

32:31

Tischendorf published this manuscript, a Greek paleographer named Constantine Simonides came forward and spent four years arguing that Codex Sinaiticus was no ancient manuscript at all, but a modern work that he had created in 1840.

32:51

If you don't mind, I'm going to speed it up a little bit here. Simonides spent four years presenting many details to prove his argument, and repeatedly challenged

32:58

Tischendorf to a public debate, but Tischendorf refused to show up, and Simonides' claims were eventually swept aside.

33:08

In time, the Codex Sinaiticus would be used to replace the traditional Greek text that had been used by the

33:14

Protestant Reformation and stood for some 300 years beforehand. Again, imbalance here.

33:21

Replace the text of the Reformation. The idea that's trying to be created there is that the Reformation chose this text, and now we were going away from that.

33:30

That is not a fair and balanced analysis. The Reformers did not have, well, here's this text over here, and here's this text over here.

33:39

We're going to choose this over against that. That is not the case, and I would think it would be significant.

33:46

It's never mentioned. I've now listened to the audio presentations, and multiple times to the alleged documentary.

33:55

I wonder why Mr. Pinto never mentioned that in the production of Erasmus' Greek New Testament, he specifically asked his friend

34:07

Bombastius in Rome to look at the Vatican manuscript. Vaticanus.

34:14

This is in the early 16th century. It is known. There is a point in these

34:20

CDs that made it sound like, well, Vaticanus was published in 1858, right before Sinaiticus, but it was well known before that.

34:27

He asked someone to look at that to verify a reading for his own text.

34:33

If he had had access to it, he would have used it, and the text of the Reformation would have included

34:39

Vaticanus. Oh, my. So the idea is, well, this is the

34:46

Reformation text, is the TR, versus the evil eclectic text. Historically naïve at best, deceptive at worst.

34:56

The Codex Sinaiticus would go on to be considered among the two oldest and most reliable manuscripts in Bible history.

35:06

Again, keep in mind, many of these folks – yeah, someone on Twitter just said, trust the

35:12

BBC as much as you trust the History Channel. Exactly. Most of these

35:18

TR -only folks are stuck with Dean Burgon. They've not gotten into the modern period with the discovery of the papyri.

35:26

And so, they're just a hundred years behind. And that's why a lot of times it's difficult to even know where to begin responding to them, because they're just – it's not dealing with the material that we're dealing with today.

35:38

It's unfortunate. If you open your Bible to the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark, you will most likely find a footnote around verse 9 that says something like this.

35:48

Verses 9 through 20 are not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the

35:53

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In fact, whenever you find a footnote that refers to the most ancient manuscripts, it almost always pertains to Codex Sinaiticus.

36:05

Because of its influence on both the Church and the world's understanding of the Bible, it is imperative that Christians, above all others, understand the real history behind this particular work.

36:17

Now notice, he's claiming to give the real history, not the false history. And yet, when you press him on things, well, but there's a question mark at the end.

36:26

I'm just asking the question. No. No, the accusation is being made. Let's just be clear about that.

36:34

One of the most startling features of the Codex Sinaiticus is its many revisions, or corrections, which number in the tens of thousands.

36:43

To understand the devastating impact these revisions have had on the perception of the Scriptures, let's begin with an audio clip from a

36:51

BBC documentary called Codex Sinaiticus, the World's Oldest Surviving Bible.

36:57

Okay, so here comes the clip. Here comes the clip. Now again, with all due respect to Brother Pinto, and I believe that he is my brother in the

37:07

Lord, the naivete illustrated in this entire effort of his is astounding to me.

37:18

Now part of it, he just may not know about the modern apologetic situation and the modern situation in scholarship, and he just may not know.

37:29

He may be going on stuff that's 100 years old, and so this all makes sense to him. But I know, and hopefully anybody else who deals in this area knows, trusting the

37:42

BBC to even allow for a meaningful expression of a

37:53

Christian perspective. Look, I go to the UK enough. I've got good friends in the

38:01

UK, and I've been going there now, wow, starting in 2005, pretty regularly.

38:09

And the first thing that's communicated to you is, you know, the BBC is an anti -Christian organization.

38:17

They will spin everything against Christianity. So to even take anything they say, but then to make it the primary reason why, this

38:31

Codex Sinaiticus is terrible, is hard to even begin to respond to.

38:41

On closer inspection, the text of the Codex Sinaiticus is littered with revisions. It is history's most altered biblical manuscript, and within those changes lie its real theological secrets.

38:52

Oh, theological secrets. Where have we heard this before?

38:58

The History Channel! The secrets of this and the secrets of that. This is not how you do scholarship.

39:03

The BBC does not do scholarship. This is not serious stuff. This is yellow journalism, and yet it's the gotcha.

39:12

Ooh, look at this. This has destroyed the faith of millions in the Bible, and it's all Codex Sinaiticus.

39:18

And I just go, um, no it's not. That's simple enough. Prove it. And the

39:24

BBC is not a meaningful source at that point. It has approximately 23 ,000 corrections in all that survives, which is an extraordinary rate of correction.

39:36

It means that on average there are about 30 corrections on each page. Given the quality of the calligraphy, scholars were surprised to find so many changes.

39:46

Many scribes wrote for money. They wrote quickly, which meant they sometimes made errors. Now, can

39:52

I just stop and mention something? Why are there so many variations here? Now, in the

39:58

Pinto theory, the Simonides theory, these came from, well, exactly who?

40:04

I don't know. I can't answer that question. Simonides mentioned that his uncle made some changes, but 23 ,000?

40:13

And at points Pinto will admit there are multiple hands involved in the production of the manuscript. He even quotes once this book right here by Dirk Junkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, a book

40:26

I've had in my library for years. He quotes this, so he knows it exists, and so he knows that there are multiple hands involved.

40:33

And yet the Simonides theory doesn't allow for multiple hands. Simonides did it.

40:41

And he did it very quickly. But then when you have to start adding in, well, and he was also collating manuscripts.

40:47

He was taking the Moscow Bibles, and Pinto's even raised the idea that he may have had access to Codex Alexandris.

40:54

I'd love to see him prove that. But somehow, now to turn him into some type of textual critical scholar who is creating a whole new text type that just happens to anticipate papyri from 200 years earlier, well, 200 years earlier in history, not the 1600s, but from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, just happens to anticipate those readings which no one else has ever seen before.

41:21

Now there ain't enough time to do that, because one thing, if you're just copying one thing down, you might be able to get it all done. But if you're collating manuscripts, do you have any earthly idea how long it takes to do that?

41:31

I mean, we can do it so much faster today, because I've got it right, well, you can't see it, but right in front of me here,

41:37

I have Accordance Bible Software, and I have a huge setup of textual critical material.

41:43

So we can do textual criticism a lot faster than we used to. They didn't have that. It took forever.

41:51

And we're not just talking about the New Testament here. It contains the Old Testament, too. And there's all sorts of fascinating readings in Codex Sinaiticus, in the

41:59

Greek Septuagint. Where'd they come from? The Simonides Theory cannot answer that question.

42:06

I hope Mr. Pinto listens. I will be asking him. Explain it. Give us the data.

42:12

Show us how Simonides, in allegedly writing a

42:17

Bible for the emperor, or the czar, whoever it was, that's supposed to be a gift.

42:24

It's not supposed to be some... I mean, he complained over it. I wasn't trying to deceive anybody. I wasn't trying to...

42:29

Okay, then. Why is it so different than any Bible that this important person would have been given by anybody else?

42:40

Where does he get this stuff? Don't know. Can't tell. Can't say. It's the big question.

42:48

So, why would there be so many changes? Because this manuscript was in use for so long. You either have the

42:53

Simonides Theory, that somehow between 1840... Actually, 1842,

43:01

I think, if I recall. One or two is when, allegedly, it goes to St. Catherine's. It's seen within two years when

43:09

Tischendorf first sees it in 1844. It's already in pieces being burned.

43:18

And then it's somehow aged and many changes made to it all in a brief period of time.

43:28

Brief period of time. What's the more logical explanation? It's a manuscript that was in use for a long, long time.

43:36

And it's interesting that the vast majority of the changes, guess what they are? They are away from the

43:42

Alexandrian text type that is the base text of Sinaiticus in later hands toward the

43:49

Byzantine text type which had become the standardized text type in the Church. That makes perfect sense.

43:58

If you have a manuscript that's in use for over a thousand years and yet it represents an earlier type of text that's different from what develops later on, the

44:10

Byzantine text, then you're going to have emendations toward the ecclesiastical text which is what the emendations generally represent.

44:19

So which one makes more sense? Some quick, mysterious, requires spooky music and Jesuits running around in an

44:27

Eastern Orthodox hmm, that's weird, anyways, type of idea? Or the fact that this manuscript actually was in use in all that time and therefore people made changes?

44:36

I mean, it's so painfully obvious. If you've ever watched my

44:42

New Testament Reliability presentation I show you, for example, the variant at 1 Timothy 3 .16 and the handwriting of the correction is so painfully not the original and so painfully obviously from later on and what's it amending it to?

44:59

The Byzantine text. Away from the Alexandrian text. I can give you lots of examples of this very thing and it's just an absolutely fatal flaw in the theory.

45:16

Why? Why do there have to be theological reasons?

45:23

They don't say. Simply allowing this manuscript to have been in use for all that time we don't know where, didn't have to be at Sinaiticus or at Mount Sinai.

45:34

Wherever it was in use would clearly allow and explain for this without any theological explanation at all.

45:42

Don't trust the BBC to do theology. They aren't worth it.

45:48

You have people, individuals, agreeing, disagreeing about what is the biblical text.

45:56

Wait a minute here. serious scholarship goes, alright, when were these emendations made?

46:04

Some were made 700 years down the road. If this was produced in a scriptorium, we know how the process worked, and we know that the work of a scribe would be checked by another scribe afterwards.

46:21

And so errors of hearing would be caught at that point in time, hopefully, corrections made.

46:29

The idea, as we're going to see from Chris Pinto in here in a moment, I'm gonna try to get done within about a quarter after so we can start

46:35

Radio Free Geneva there. If you're just tuning in now, we're just running a little bit behind time, but hopefully, look, you're not going to get discussions like this anyplace else.

46:43

So we'll just get it done, we get it done. As Chris Pinto is going to say later on, what he tries to present is the idea that all these people sit around going, well

46:56

I don't know, I'm not sure if I like that reading, how about we try this, let's put that in there. That's not what was going on.

47:05

In a scriptorium, you have the initial transcription, you might have an immediate check, and then a second check before final publication.

47:15

It's not a bunch of people sitting around going, oh I don't know, I think we should do this. That is not a fair representation.

47:22

If the biblical text could vary, it couldn't be the immutable word of God. Why? Why? You see, the

47:34

BBC editors are ignorant of biblical theology. Chris Pinto shouldn't be.

47:40

And Chris Pinto should know that the New Testament writers quote the Greek Septuagint when it disagrees the

47:48

Masoretic Hebrew and makes points based upon the textual variant in the Greek. He should know that.

47:55

And hence, should have already struggled with the issue of textual variation in the transmission of the

48:01

Word of God. And hence, should immediately recognize that that statement is absurd on its face.

48:12

But it's being presented as final evidence that we've got to get rid of Sinaiticus because it's the bullet that kills biblical inerrancy, when all you've got here are obviously, sadly, misinformed liberal

48:32

Brits who are the result of a, well, dead state church. What the

48:38

Codex Sinaiticus was revealing was the instability of the story. This volume is the oldest surviving copy of the

48:45

New Testament, complete. This is the ancestor of all the Bibles that everybody else has in the world.

48:51

Baloney. I cannot think of a single textual scholar in the world that would make that statement.

48:58

Not one. Not one. Is it in the transmission history? You bet.

49:03

Does it represent a particular stage in that transmission? You bet. Is it the ancestor? Everybody else came to Sinaiticus?

49:09

Baloney. Ba -lo -ney. Chris Pinto should know that. Should know that.

49:15

Chris, you should have known that. That's absurd. There are readings in the papyri that are much more primitive than what's found in Sinaiticus.

49:26

Why aren't those the ancestors? There are particular, not as a text type, but particular

49:32

Byzantine readings that are older than what's found in Sinaiticus. Why isn't that the ancestor? There is no one ancestor.

49:39

That is an absurd view. But again, the BBC likes absurd views.

49:46

Now very quickly, Chris Pinto started commenting. Here's just a brief portion right at the beginning of what he says and we'll take a break and when we come back we'll start

49:57

Radio Free Geneva. About the Codex and when he talks about it, he talks about how the scribes who were working on this manuscript were essentially disagreeing with what the manuscript should say and what various passages of the scriptures should be.

50:19

And so they're basically saying, no, don't put this there, put that. No, not this, that.

50:25

No, take that out. No, put this in. Back and forth, back and forth, an average of 30 times per page, it is said, for a total of 23 ,000 revisions throughout this manuscript.

50:40

That is called today, this is the manuscript that they call one of the oldest and most reliable.

50:49

Now, what would have to be true for that to be the case? That all these changes had to take place in the initial production of the manuscript and then it was never touched again.

51:00

Explain that in light of the nature of the changes themselves. Look at, go look at Codex Sinaiticus .org,

51:07

look at 1 Timothy 3 .16, look at the insertion of the os, the nominus sacra of the os, next to hos in that reading, and you tell me that was done anywhere near the same time in which the original production was done.

51:24

And there was lots more. There's lots more. You know, Mr. Pinto says,

51:29

I've spent years studying this. You know what? I'm sure he did. I'm sure he did. But you know what?

51:35

When you study a subject, have we not learned from the dearly departed

51:40

Dave Hunt that you can study with blindfolds on? That you hear what you want to hear, you see what you want to see, you're pursuing one thing.

51:52

That's what I've tried to avoid doing and being as I study Islam. Lots of pressure is upon me to only see the worst.

52:03

I have to be fair. I cannot utilize one standard in the defense of my faith and a different standard in the criticism of Islam.

52:13

Do I fail at it? I suppose I probably do at times, but I try hard and I'll tell you one thing,

52:19

I try harder than any of my Muslim friends do, but we've got to do the same thing here.

52:25

And Chris Pinto has not been fair. He's not been fair. He may have read these books, but just like Dave Hunt could read

52:37

Charles Spurgeon and see one paragraph but not see the paragraph in front of it which completely contradicted his tradition, that's a danger for all of us, isn't it?

52:49

It is. One more quote. Right alongside its sister manuscript,

52:54

Codex Vaticanus, but just think about that for a minute. A manuscript full of all of these changes and revisions and so on that have been warned about since it first emerged, and so they say this is the oldest record of the

53:09

Bible complete that we have, and there's 23 ,000 revisions. There have to be theological reasons for this, why it demonstrates, as the narrator said, the instability of the gospel story.

53:25

In other words, early Christians did not really know what to believe, and they were arguing and debating about what the

53:32

Bible should say. Therefore, they conclude, it could not be the immutable

53:39

Word of God, meaning the inspired inerrant Word of God. And so this they use to support the modern argument that the

53:48

Bible was written by men and it's a man -made document. So since liberals, who don't really care about historical facts but just pile things together, since liberals use

54:01

Codex Sinaiticus against us, then we need to attack Codex Sinaiticus. They used the differences between the seven editions that make up the

54:12

Texas Receptus against us, too. Why don't you do that? Why don't you reject the

54:17

Texas Receptus? They point out that the TR has readings that have never been known by any

54:23

Christian prior to the creation of the TR. Why don't you get rid of the TR, then? Where's the consistency?

54:28

You must be consistent, Mr. Pinto. Just because something's used by unbelievers doesn't mean it's being used properly.

54:40

So that debate's coming up. I will probably have... I probably took more time today than I will actually have in total in the debate, which will give you an idea of just how fast it's going to have to be and things like that.

54:55

So there you go. We're going to take a brief break and then do what we said we're going to do, Radio Free Geneva.

55:02

We'll be right back. Answering those who claim that only the

55:16

King James Version is the Word of God, James White, in his book The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true

55:27

Christian faith. In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

55:41

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomin

55:50

.org. More than any time in the past,

56:45

Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder -to -shoulder against social evils.

56:51

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements. And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the

56:59

Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

57:09

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

57:16

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

57:26

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

57:34

Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at www .aomin .org.

58:36

Well, first of all, James, you know,

58:42

I'm a Christian, and I've been a Christian for a long time. I've been a Christian for a long time. I've been a Christian for a long time. I'm very ignorant of the Reformers. I think

58:51

I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists.

58:57

Did we in our own strength confide our striving would be losing?

59:07

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever were not the right man on our side, the man of God's own choosing.

59:23

Ladies and gentlemen, James White is a hyper -Calvinist. Now, whatever we do in Baptist life, we don't need to be teaming up with hyper -Calvinists.

59:31

Dost that who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he.

59:38

I said the other day in class that I don't understand the difference between hyper -Calvinism and Calvinism.

59:44

It seems to me that Calvin was a hyper -Calvinist. Right, I don't think there is typically any difference between Calvinism and hyper -Calvinism.

59:55

Lord, serve off his name, from age to age the same, and he must win the battle.

01:00:10

And now, from our underground bunker hidden deep beneath Liberty University, where no one would think to look, safe from those moderate

01:00:18

Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who've read and re -read George Bryson's book, we are

01:00:23

Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save to his own eternal glory.

01:00:29

So have we gotten the plans finished for moving the underground bunker to Bruton Parker now? It's getting a little boring there at Liberty.

01:00:39

I'll get the shovel, you get the wheelbarrow. Yeah, yeah, you bet.

01:00:48

Well, welcome to Radio Free Geneva, folks. I'm already tired. I've already been at this for an hour, but we needed to deal with what we had to deal with, and we'll be dealing with more three dividing lines this week.

01:01:03

It's going to be pretty crazy. I was sent via Twitter a link to a sermon, and I had the opportunity.

01:01:13

I don't always have the opportunity. If you send me a link someday and I don't follow through with it or something, don't get upset with me.

01:01:20

There's only so many hours in a day. But I took the time, downloaded the sermon, threw it on the iPod, and headed out.

01:01:35

My Garmin 810 bike computer can link with my phone. Certain people,

01:01:42

I don't put this out publicly, because the jihadis of the world would love that. I mean, that would be like 24 fodder right there.

01:01:51

You've heard of whack -a -mole, whack -a -Calvinist. Yeah, whack -a -Calvinist. The people that I invite can literally follow my ride.

01:02:02

I mean, it's a little bing, bing, bing. You watch it going up the roads, and you can click on it.

01:02:08

How fast is the person? What's their heart rate? I mean, a whole nine yards. It's amazing. The technology is awesome. Of course, people have gone,

01:02:15

Yeah, I bet you the NSA loves it, too. Yeah, well, if the NSA wants to assign some poor guy to follow my bike rides.

01:02:23

But anyway, I listened to it, and I went, Yeah, yeah, this is definitely radio -free

01:02:31

Geneva material. For one particular reason. First of all, Dr. Gaines is very well known.

01:02:38

Bellevue Baptist in Memphis, Tennessee is very well known. Has a very large footprint, shall we say, in the

01:02:45

Southern Baptist Convention. And the theology that's presented is the standard understanding that you would sort of absorb by osmosis in most

01:03:01

Southern Baptist churches. Not all. There's good Founders' churches out there and things like that. But this would sort of be what you'd get by osmosis.

01:03:07

I know this because it was pretty much how people viewed things at the North Phoenix Baptist Church when I was there.

01:03:13

And in talking with folks, especially when I was teaching a class on Christian theology, we'd get into election, and we'd start talking about these things, and I'd have people come up to me after class going,

01:03:26

Well, I thought this, or I thought that. And when you ask, Why did you think that?

01:03:32

Generally, it was just sort of absorbed over time. It was just sort of how things were put. And so it seemed to me, it struck me, that it would be an excellent sermon to review because it really does present a very standard, synergistic, foreknowledge -based argument.

01:03:53

Hopefully review it in a respectful fashion. I don't have any reason to be nasty, even though, to be honest with you, at some point, let me see if I can look at it here real quickly because I have this very well marked.

01:04:13

And by the way, I will be playing it at a slightly enhanced speed so we can get through it faster.

01:04:21

And I used a new, someone in Channel, actually, I think it was Gerg in Channel, pointed out to me that Audio Notetaker has this really cool thing in it.

01:04:31

I should have used it on that one. Where you can select the audio and then remove silence.

01:04:38

And it'll tighten it up so that the long, it does remove the long pauses for effect,

01:04:45

I guess. But for doing what we're trying to do and get as much information out there in as short a time as we can, it's really, really cool.

01:04:53

So let me see here. There we go. You tell me, if Pastor Gaines, what

01:05:02

Pastor Gaines is talking about here. I want you to give it all away, and if you do, give it to the poor, you'll have treasure in heaven, follow me, and the man could have said yes.

01:05:12

If he could not have said yes, then we have to say to Jesus, you're giving him a false hope. If you've already predestined him to hell, then you're toying with him.

01:05:22

Now that's the hard facts. Jesus doesn't toy with people. Jesus gave the man a legitimate option.

01:05:28

And the man chose not to receive Jesus. And it says he turned away.

01:05:34

His face fell, his countenance fell, he owned much property. Really, he was owned by much property. But Jesus wanted to save him.

01:05:41

He felt a love for him, he gave him. Look, what does it say about Jesus if it wasn't a legitimate offer? If he was just toying with the man?

01:05:49

If he was just saying, I'm just offering this. I know you can't do it because you're not the elect. I know that you can't receive it because you're not predestined.

01:05:55

If that's the case, what does that say about God? What does that say about Jesus giving a false hope?

01:06:01

Giving a false invitation? That's the reality of what we're dealing with. Do you understand how wicked that would be?

01:06:08

And look at me, Jesus is not wicked. Jesus said, come to me, come to me, come to me. I get the feeling that Pastor Gaines feels that at least his understanding of Reformed theology, that that's wicked.

01:06:22

Now, of course, I would point out, just in response to that, and we'll get to it later on in the sermon, but I'll simply point out, he says in this sermon he's not an open theist.

01:06:33

Which means Jesus, as God, knew whether this man would be saved or not. And if he wasn't saved, then

01:06:39

Pastor Gaines finds himself in the exact same position as the Calvinists. Because if this man was not saved, then

01:06:49

Jesus knew that when he spoke to him. Right? And so what was he doing?

01:06:56

I mean, Jesus knew that despite the best efforts of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, this man was going to go to hell.

01:07:02

So what's he doing? A fool's errand? You see, the problem that I had with Pastor Gaines' sermon is that his position cannot answer most of the questions he asks of the

01:07:16

Reformed position. It's not been thought through properly, and that, unfortunately, is the case with most

01:07:22

Southern Baptists on this particular subject. This has not been thought through, they've not been challenged to think it through.

01:07:29

And that's what we're going to be doing here. Now, you may ask, well, did you let Pastor Gaines know? Well, let me go down, let me see here.

01:07:40

I think this is it, let me just play it real quick. I'm not going to argue with you about it, don't dare email me this week about this.

01:07:48

You can tweet about me all you want to, I don't even like that word, but just remember, you're going to get an account. So he says, don't email me, don't tweet me, don't argue with me about this.

01:07:59

So it's like he specifically said, don't contact me about this. If you're going to respond to it, don't even tell me.

01:08:06

So, okay. Maybe somebody in the Church will let him know.

01:08:11

I would love if he would take the time to seriously listen, but my experience over the decades, and it's starting to be decades, has been that most of the folks that will preach entire sermons, and in the process demonstrate some pretty serious misunderstandings, some pretty serious traditions, aren't really interested in hearing the other side.

01:08:36

That's just been my experience. I would like to be wrong here, I really would, but we will seek to be as respectful as possible in our response.

01:08:44

All right, so we go to the start. I'm playing at 1 .2. To get through it a little bit quicker, let's get to it.

01:08:54

When I looked at this passage, I said, you know, this would be an excellent text to speak about the sovereignty of God.

01:09:00

What struck me is this is from 2 Kings, and it's about the woman whose son had been raised from the dead, getting her land back.

01:09:12

And the whole thing about the sovereignty of God was because she was allowed to go sojourn wherever she chose. That's where you go for the sovereignty of God?

01:09:20

How about the text where it specifically says things like, God does all his will in the heavens and the earth, and, you know,

01:09:26

Daniel 4, when Nebuchadnezzar says he does whatever he pleases, no one can raise their hand against him. How about the passage that actually talks about the sovereignty of God?

01:09:33

But no, no, we go to a text, 2 Kings, and make some rather interesting applications.

01:09:43

Some people believe that the sovereignty of God means that everything that happens is the will of God. That is not what

01:09:48

I believe the Bible says that the sovereignty of God is. I think that it is God is sovereign over everything that happens, and that he can take everything that happens and accomplish his ultimate will.

01:10:01

Now, what we're going to find out is that Pastor Gaines refuses to utilize the theological distinction that has been used by Christians down through the ages between the will of God, what's called the prescriptive will of God, which is found in his law, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc.,

01:10:22

etc., both negative and positive elements of God's moral law, his prescriptive will for the best for mankind, and his decretive will, the will by which time itself is formed.

01:10:36

He does not seemingly accept that distinction. The result is a crippling contradiction in the text of the

01:10:43

Bible. When you do not recognize those distinctions, you will have to utterly diminish the testimony of Scripture to the sovereignty of God, where God talks about the hardening of men's hearts and the fact that he's with the beginning and the end, and he works all things after the counsel of his will.

01:11:04

He's going to talk about Ephesians 1, he's going to turn it on its head. He has to, because he will not utilize the distinction that comes from the text itself.

01:11:13

And we will have to, probably at some point, have to look at, you know, Genesis 50 and Isaiah 10 again and Acts 4 and demonstrate that there are times when

01:11:23

God predestines evil acts. Now, is that part of his prescriptive will?

01:11:29

Or is that part of his decretive will? Well, it's his decretive will, obviously. It's not part of his prescriptive will.

01:11:35

That would be a contradiction. So, uh, but because he will not utilize that distinction, you end up with a very bad diminishment of the biblical testimony to the true sovereignty of God, which comes from his creative decree itself.

01:11:55

It forms the very fabric of time. When you start saying that everything that happens is the will of God, then all of a sudden you have thrown

01:12:00

God into a category of ordaining sin. God does not predestine what he prohibits in Scripture.

01:12:08

God does not predestine sin. So, obviously, when we look at Acts chapter 4 and the clear testimony of Scripture, that God predestined, ordained the crucifixion, and that it was clearly an act of sin on the part of the

01:12:24

Jews, the Romans, Pilate, Herod, etc., etc., you're left with a conundrum.

01:12:32

You're left with contradiction. Because you will not allow for a fuller biblical theology.

01:12:40

You've flattened it out. You've made it two -dimensional. And that tends to be, unfortunately, the track that is taken by many

01:12:49

Southern Baptists is, we don't want to utilize all that theological language over there.

01:12:55

Now, obviously, there's lots of, you know, this isn't the case at Southern Seminary and places like that. I'm talking about out in the churches.

01:13:04

And, since I can point to Genesis 50, God ordained the selling of Joseph into slavery to save many people alive.

01:13:14

He intended it. And yet, the brothers were accountable for their sin. It's a predestined act.

01:13:20

It's sinful. God predestined it. It's what the Bible says. Patrick Gaines says, nope, but the

01:13:25

Bible says yes. Isaiah 10, Assyrians come down against Israel.

01:13:33

Rape, murder, pillage. God says, I'm bringing them, the weapon in my hand, and then

01:13:38

I will punish them because of the attitude of their heart. He predestines the action. It's a sinful action, and he punishes the action.

01:13:45

It's there. Deal with it. God's sovereignty is bigger and deeper and higher than the sovereignty that would be exercised by a mere human king.

01:14:01

It transcends those categories. We must recognize that. In each one of those events, in Genesis 50,

01:14:08

Isaiah 10, Acts chapter 4, God's purposes are absolutely pure. Man's are not.

01:14:16

But that's the testimony of the Bible. And notice, even before he's opened the text, he has laid out the conclusion.

01:14:23

The conclusion is God would never do this. Shock of all shocks, once we examine the text, what do we find?

01:14:31

The very same conclusion, allegedly. Which was already laid out as a starting point. We live in a day when people say,

01:14:36

Oh no, God made me this way. That is not right. God made us in his image.

01:14:42

We have a choice. Really, if you think about it, the people that really gravitate toward everything that happens is the will of God.

01:14:51

I can't help what I do. It's just the way I am. That's indicative of our whole society.

01:14:57

We want to blame somebody else for our problems. We don't want to take responsibility. Even if it's God, even if it's predestination, even if it's a theological blaming, we want to do it now.

01:15:07

Now, of course, a reformed theologian operating with a much deeper definition of the sovereignty of God, and the thing is,

01:15:18

Pastor Gaines knows about this. He's going to mention it briefly in passing later on. He's going to mention, well, you'll talk about means,

01:15:25

I know all that, and then he goes on. Well, he may know about that, but he's not allowing it to enter into his thinking. Because no meaningful

01:15:34

Calvinist no meaningful Calvinist is going to make the argument that, well,

01:15:46

I am what I am, and so I'll just go with it. We understand that God ordains the ends and the means, that we do not know the content of God's sovereign decree, and that we are held accountable to God's prescriptive will.

01:16:06

So the idea that Calvinism leads to, well, God made me this way, he's going to make the argument a couple times in his sermon, that us

01:16:15

Reformed folks wouldn't have anything to say to the homosexuals. Well, I think he's a little wrong on that. I know he's taken a stand on these things,

01:16:24

I saw some websites that really went after him for his taking a stand against gay marriage and things like that, but I think he needs to realize that there are a lot of us

01:16:31

Reformed folks that have been just as much out front on this as he's been. And have not found the problems that he claims we're going to have.

01:16:45

I'm going to show you that God has a plan on three different levels at least, but we can either obey or disobey the plan.

01:16:54

And God does not predestine either our obedience or our disobedience. God, his predestination, is all wrapped up in his foreknowledge.

01:17:06

Now, normally when you hear someone say, God has a plan, what you're thinking is a plan that has some specifics to it.

01:17:16

You need to get rid of that. That's not what he's thinking. That's not what he's saying.

01:17:22

That's not what he's presenting. What he is saying is that there is a general vague plan for your betterment.

01:17:35

But it's all up to you as to whether you're going to avail yourself of it or not. It's a very vague thing, once he starts getting down to the nitty gritty.

01:17:46

And so, the idea of God as a plan for your life is really honestly has no more than, yeah, if you obey

01:17:54

God, things are going to go well. If you don't obey God, things aren't going to go well. Not the idea of a specific calling, path, mate, etc.,

01:18:04

etc. That's not there. When you see predestination in Ephesians 1, it is a plan of salvation, not a people to be saved.

01:18:14

Now, let me repeat this, because this is very, very common. It's very, very eisegetical, but it's very, very common.

01:18:20

In Ephesians 1, it is a plan of salvation, not a people to be saved.

01:18:26

So, he's going to go into this a little bit more fully later on, so I'm going to wait until there to respond to it fully.

01:18:32

But the assertion that you need to understand is that this is an impersonal choice.

01:18:40

Synergism generally results in an impersonal view of salvation.

01:18:46

God chooses a plan. God chooses a nameless, faceless group. If you get into this group, then you will be chosen.

01:18:56

You will be elected by your actions. You personally aren't chosen.

01:19:04

It's impersonal. It's a group. It's a plan. Now, obviously, that's not what Ephesians 1 says.

01:19:09

The direct object of choose is personal. Christian salvation is personal.

01:19:15

Union with Christ demands it be personal. Substitutionary atonement demands that it be personal.

01:19:21

But most people don't realize that the synergistic Arminian perspective results in an impersonal —in fact, it results in an impersonal provision that you only make personal by your actions.

01:19:39

That should be frightening to anybody. I am so thankful. Christian salvation is personal, and it's personal because God made it that way, not me.

01:19:48

Because I never would have done it. I know my heart. I never would have done it.

01:19:54

This is an impersonal perspective. We are predestined in Christ. That word occurs almost a dozen times in Ephesians 1.

01:20:04

And what it means is that God created a plan for salvation. We are saved in Christ.

01:20:10

So a plan for salvation. This is called corporate election.

01:20:16

It's not personal election. It's not individual election. The group that is predestined is not identified.

01:20:26

It's not made up of identifiable individuals. We fill that in by our faith act.

01:20:32

See? And where does he get this? Herschel Hobbes. His Ph .D.

01:20:38

was in preaching, and his subject was the sermons of Herschel Hobbes.

01:20:45

So shocking that he would adopt Herschel Hobbes' perspective. But here's what he says.

01:20:52

We are saved in Christ. Herschel Hobbes said it this way. He's the one that really taught me about what that means in Ephesians 1.

01:20:58

He said, Steve, it's like this. And I did my Ph .D. dissertation on his preaching. I read almost 500 of his sermons.

01:21:04

I have them in my office. I'm the only person in the world that has all of his transcripts, all of his sermons on file.

01:21:13

They did not save them at the Baptist Hour. He preached for 18 years on the Baptist Hour nationwide when radio was the big thing on the

01:21:19

Baptist Hour. And he preached great sermons. And I have all of them in my office. And I don't know what

01:21:24

I'm going to do with them, but I've got them. But he said, it's like this. God made a fence, and that fence is

01:21:30

Christ. He said, here's what he said, I predestined that everyone who is within that fence, who is in Christ, is saved, and everybody that's not is not.

01:21:37

A plan was predestined, but God did not say, ok, you're in, you're in, you're out, you're out.

01:21:45

God didn't do that. God, there's not one verse of Scripture that says God predestined anybody to go to Hell, specifically.

01:21:52

God did predestine, though, that if you don't know Jesus, you will go to Hell. And there's a difference. It's so funny.

01:21:59

As soon as I heard that, I remembered exactly where I was when I heard it. Which was probably about 40 yards from the shore of Bartlett Lake.

01:22:11

Which may not mean anything to any of you, but it just sort of triggered a memory. Anyway, there you've got the impersonal thing.

01:22:18

It's a fenced -in area. You can get into the fenced -in area. If you're in the fenced -in area, then you're going to be saved. If you're not in the fenced -in area, then you're not.

01:22:25

But who gets in, who gets out, is not a part of God's election. Now, it is absolutely impossible to read

01:22:34

Ephesians 1 in that way. I'm sorry, it just is. You can massage it, and you can do whatever you want with it, but the fact of the matter is

01:22:45

Ephesians chapter 1 does not say that. And all of the attempts to get around Ephesians 1 will not work.

01:22:55

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed whom? Us. Is that personal or impersonal?

01:23:02

Is that an impersonal group? He has blessed us with every spiritual blessing.

01:23:08

Are impersonal groups blessed with spiritual blessings, or is that a personal thing? In the heavenly places, in Christ.

01:23:15

Now, this is where he goes, see, it's all in Christ. Right, it is. But it's people who are united with Christ.

01:23:23

It's an elect people who are united with Christ. Not a plan. There's no plan united to Christ.

01:23:30

There's no open -fenced -in area with a gate you can go through by some autonomous act of faith.

01:23:38

We have been blessed in the heavenly places, every spiritual blessing, in Christ. Now, there's everything to recognize that all these blessings are only in Christ, but to make

01:23:49

Christ the chosen one and impersonalize salvation is nowhere found in this text.

01:23:56

Because verse 4 says, just as he chose what? Us. Kathos exalexata, what?

01:24:06

Hemos. Hemos is the direct object. En alto is not the direct object.

01:24:15

Him is not the direct object of choosing. We are the direct object. Are we a plan? Are these words directed to a plan, an impersonal concept?

01:24:25

The answer is no. Now, that sphere of choice is

01:24:33

God's choice. The amazing thing is, synergists turn Ephesians 1 upside down, so it's no longer

01:24:39

God's choice, but man's choice. We choose to enter into Christ, but the choice is made by God the

01:24:49

Father in Christ. And it's us who are chosen. See how intensely personal it is?

01:24:56

You can't understand what's being said here if you do not see the union of the elect with Christ. It's just not possible.

01:25:05

Just as it shows us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy.

01:25:13

Now, plans are not made holy. Plans are not adopted in the family of God.

01:25:20

People are. People are. And this is an eternal election.

01:25:27

It's not based upon what we do. It's not based upon God looking down the corridors of time saying, oh, I see who's going to choose me, so I'm going to choose them.

01:25:36

He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. Plans are not holy and blameless.

01:25:44

We are. In love, He predestined, again,

01:25:50

Hamas. Personal direct object. Not impersonal. Not a neuter.

01:25:58

He predestined us unto adoption through Jesus Christ unto Himself. Adoption is personal.

01:26:07

Adoption, no plan has ever been adopted into the family of God. No plan has ever said,

01:26:13

Abba, Father. It's not a plan. It's a people. A specific people.

01:26:19

He predestined us to adoption as sons to Jesus Christ to Himself according to the kind intention of His will.

01:26:28

If this plan, if I'm the one that chooses to go into the fenced off area so as to become a son of God, then that is according to the intention of my will.

01:26:46

But this says, this choosing, this predestination is according to the kind intention of His will.

01:26:53

Not my will. My will is described in Scripture as being enslaved to sin.

01:26:59

My will is described as being a heart of stone. My will is described as being a valley of dry bones. I'm dead.

01:27:05

Incapable of doing what's good before God. That's the biblical testimony.

01:27:12

According to the kind intention of His will, to the praise, the glory of His grace, not my wisdom in getting myself into the fenced area, which

01:27:24

He freely bestowed on us, in the Beloved One. Now, there's everything right to say there is something specific here.

01:27:33

It's only in Christ. That's true. But to use that as an excuse to turn this into some kind of impersonal thing?

01:27:43

Some general plan? Nowhere to be found in Ephesians 1.

01:27:51

Just not there. Just not there. He's going to say some more about things.

01:27:56

He's going to jump down to Ephesians 1 and specifically verses 10 and 11.

01:28:06

We'll get to that one in just a moment. So let's press on. Notice here that God sovereignly warned the woman and her family to leave

01:28:15

Israel because a famine was inevitably en route. There's the sovereignty of God. God was planning the weather.

01:28:21

God was planning the famine. But God allowed the woman to make some decisions for herself. Did you notice that? He told her through the prophet

01:28:27

Elisha that the famine was coming. He told her how long it would last, for seven years. But then

01:28:32

He said, did you catch it? Arise and go with your household and sojourn wherever you can. Sojourn.

01:28:38

God allowed her to choose where she would go. Every minute detail of her sojourn or her traveling was not spelled out and ordained by God.

01:28:52

Now, since the specifics of where she was to go are not commanded to her, the idea is it's not part of God's plan.

01:29:03

Let's think about this for a moment because later on in the sermon she's going to return, well later on in the text, she's going to return at the exact time and Pastor Gaines is going to say at the exact time that God ordained.

01:29:18

Now let's think about how that could happen. Let's say there is no sovereign decree of God.

01:29:27

What being presented here is this idea that God doesn't have a sovereign plan that is going to bring her back at a particular point to fulfill

01:29:41

God's purpose. Instead, God has looked down to the corridors of time and is joyously shocked to see she's going to come back right at the time where he can fulfill a purpose.

01:29:54

There's a vast difference between the two. You see, one, God is the observer and he's observing time.

01:30:02

Maybe he exists outside of time. And he's observing it and he goes,

01:30:08

I see this is going to happen so I can't interfere with human free will but I can do things like famines and earthquakes and all sorts of stuff like that.

01:30:24

He sees she's going to sojourn and she's going to be safe.

01:30:30

She's not going to happen to fall amongst any thieves. She's not going to be exposed to any deadly diseases.

01:30:37

I'm not going to let any rocks fall on her because I only control physical stuff.

01:30:45

But she's going to manage to find enough food and I see and I didn't decree any of this. I created all of it but I didn't determine what was going to happen.

01:30:55

I just tossed the cosmic dice and now I'm doing the best I can with what's been given to me to work things out in a particular way.

01:31:08

So the reason that she comes back at that time is not because God sovereignly ordained it but because God passively saw it in the future.

01:31:20

Is that sovereignty? No. That's just having a whole lot of knowledge.

01:31:27

That's not sovereignty. Sovereignty is rulership. Sovereignty is kingship.

01:31:34

And the king is not king just because he happens to have a magic ball he can see into the future with. You see, if God doesn't have control of the free choices of men which seems to be the essence of the synergistic perspective then he can't guarantee that woman is going to come back at a certain point in time.

01:31:54

He can't force her to come back. What if she decides she likes it where she is? What if she falls in love and gets married?

01:32:02

Stays there? God's entire plan? Frustrated. All messed up.

01:32:10

Or what's worse? What if she decides to help somebody out who's sick and she gets sick and she dies?

01:32:18

Well that won't happen because God saw this but if again if you don't have the sovereign decree of God, and I don't think

01:32:26

Dr. Gaines believes there is one I think I'm being fair in listening to the entirety of the sermon more than once, but if you don't have a sovereign decree of God then what you have is

01:32:39

God when he creates, he tosses the cosmic dice and at some in some process takes in knowledge of what happens in time.

01:32:51

Now I don't think that frees him from responsibility for what happens in time. If he created all this and he knew before he created it what was going to happen

01:33:01

Dr. Gaines is in the exact same position without an oar to row with as the

01:33:07

Calvinist who has two oars to row with. What I mean by that is he's going to say over and over again

01:33:13

God never ordained these things! He permitted them! Okay, if he permitted them, did he do so for a purpose or not?

01:33:24

If he permitted them, then he's still responsible in some fashion. And if you don't have a sovereign decree where he is accomplishing his own glory, what's the purpose?

01:33:33

All this purposeless evil God brought into existence and like I said, he's going to say,

01:33:38

I'm not an open theist. Well, at least if you're an open theist you'd have an excuse. But since you're not an open theist

01:33:45

I'm not sure what your excuse is going to be. Because the questions you ask, the objections you raise are just as valid against your own position.

01:33:56

And this is why we address these things on Radio Free Geneva because when major figures, when churches teach as tradition, and this is a tradition of men, teach traditions that are sub -biblical or anti -biblical it leaves their people stunted in their growth and when you don't have the full -orbed biblical revelation being presented to you, especially in this area and I've said many times and Pastor Gaines has been here many times in this position not in this room, in this position

01:34:37

I've been in the hospital room I was a hospital chaplain and you have to face the question, what is

01:34:46

God's intention in this event? And there's two very different ways of approaching that.

01:34:51

Either you try to put God as far away as possible God had nothing to do with this,

01:34:56

He didn't decree this, but He's gonna help you put everything back together again. I could never tell anybody that.

01:35:03

It's just, it's not satisfying. It makes no sense.

01:35:10

Wait a minute, you're telling me the guy was on vacation when this tragedy struck but in the future he's going to do a better job?

01:35:18

He's going to help me put the pieces back together again but he didn't see this coming? He knows

01:35:23

God knows the future. Well yeah, God knew it was coming. Okay, so God created all things,

01:35:29

He created this world in which this tragedy was going to happen. You're telling me there wasn't any purpose in it?

01:35:36

You see, the Reformed person says, in whatever happens in our lives I may not see the final end and I may be being used of God and His purpose is to use me up.

01:35:53

And I think of the missionaries who have died and the martyrs who have died. I mean, how many videos have we seen of Christian martyrs beaten to death in the streets of Muslim nations with the police standing by doing nothing?

01:36:09

Was that purposeless? You mean you could have told me God had foreknowledge of that but no purpose?

01:36:22

Of course there's a purpose. There's a divine decree. We can say to anyone, I may not be able to see what the end result is, but I have absolutely perfect confidence that the very fabric of time that is being woven by the sovereign decree of God He promises to me will result in the praise of His glorious grace.

01:36:45

I may not be able to see it now but I can trust Him. I can know. It's important stuff.

01:36:53

It's really important stuff. You see, God created us in His image, and part of that means that we have freedom of choice.

01:37:04

And our freedom of choice to be sure, is tainted by a sinful nature.

01:37:11

Now I would really like to ask the question what that means. Tainted by a sinful nature?

01:37:18

That doesn't seem quite as strong as the terminology that Jesus used in John chapter 8.

01:37:29

He said we were slaves to sin. Tainted by sin? Tainted by a sinful nature?

01:37:36

Slaves to sin? I think Jesus was a little stronger on that point. A little stronger on that point.

01:37:45

And when it comes to this issue of salvation, Jesus said no man is able to come to me unless the

01:37:56

Father who sent me draws him and I'll raise him up in the last day. So, the ones that are drawn are the ones that are raised up in the last day.

01:38:02

We know that's those that are given by the Father and the Son. That's the elect. So they're the only ones that have the ability to come to Christ because it's given to them by the

01:38:09

Father. Hmm. So where is this free will choice?

01:38:16

I don't know. But that's a question that needs to be answered. God does not ordain and predestine those choices.

01:38:24

God doesn't say you choose this sin, you choose that sin. God doesn't predestine our sin.

01:38:30

Again, He doesn't predestine what He prohibits in Scripture. Now where do people get that idea? They take verses like Ephesians 1, 11 and again, out of context, in my opinion, which is all about in Christ and predestination and all that in Christ, they say...

01:38:44

Now notice, he has decided that his corporate understanding, which we've just demonstrated, cannot stand exegetical analysis.

01:38:56

Just on a basic grammatical level. What is the direct object of choose? What is the direct object of preordain?

01:39:02

Predestine. It's not a plan. It's people. Yes, it's in Christ, but they've turned it upside down to where Christ becomes the one that's chosen and we've got to get in Him somehow.

01:39:13

Takes that, that now becomes the context. So the natural reading of verse 11, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose, who works all things after the counsel of His will, which is a gloriously foundational statement.

01:39:36

Gloriously foundational statement. Do you rejoice in that statement? Do you not realize that the all -pervasiveness of that statement is the very foundation of your confidence in salvation itself?

01:39:56

Think about it. Let me give you an illustration. We ain't gonna get very far in the sermon right now, so there's gonna be some

01:40:02

Radio Free Geneva's coming up. Let me give you an illustration. Years and years ago,

01:40:08

I turned toward the camera and get a comfortable chair when you know a story is coming. I think

01:40:15

Pastor Gaines Pastor Gaines has this option or has this penchant to say, now look at me, look at me.

01:40:23

Drives me nuts. Especially when you're listening to an mp3. I can't. Look at me. Look at me.

01:40:30

Years ago, when I had my first encounter with Mormon missionaries, Elders Reed and Reese, we met on a

01:40:37

Monday and a Thursday, about three hours each time, and the last words

01:40:44

I said to those missionaries as they were leaving are words

01:40:49

I would say to missionaries to this day, thankfully, and I'm thankful the Lord led the conversation that way.

01:40:56

But I said to them, gentlemen, someday you're gonna need to know a

01:41:01

God who does not change. Now it's really strange because this is really my first encounter with Mormonism and for me to have already had the central conviction that has continued my ministry to Mormons ever since then, at that point in time, especially at that age of 19 years of age.

01:41:22

Huh, same age as Simonides. Hmm. Must be a conspiracy here. But anyways, it's really odd.

01:41:31

But I said to them, someday you're gonna need to know a God who does not change. Your God changes. You do not have any confidence that God is going to be the same tomorrow as He is today.

01:41:44

Your God's changed. Your God's evolved. He was once a man, now He's God. If He was once fallen, now He's holy. All these changes.

01:41:53

This text is telling us the exact same thing. What is the confidence that we have? You see, if God does not work all things after the counsel of His will, first of all,

01:42:02

Romans 8, 28 goes out the door. What's the promise? Those who are called according to God's purpose?

01:42:08

He works all things for their good. All things. Well, if He has no predestining power, that promise cannot be fulfilled.

01:42:19

Because man's free will will get in the way of that all the time. And if it's just, well, you see, since He has perfect foreknowledge, then

01:42:27

He acts in accordance to knowing what the future is. That still means He's limited in what He can do. And how

01:42:37

He can have perfect foreknowledge without a divine decree is really problematic on many levels.

01:42:43

But the point is, when Paul says we have obtained an inheritance, what is the foundation that makes that ours?

01:42:55

Well, we've been predestined. Predestined according to what? Well, it's either, well, we've been predestined because God tossed the cosmic dice and He saw we'd accept

01:43:06

Him. Think about what that means. You've got a God who learns something. You've got a

01:43:12

God who, well, but He had divine foreknowledge. Okay, but if there's no decree, then

01:43:21

He could only elect those who choose Him. He could not elect one more person or one less.

01:43:27

Then His own creation allows Him to. Wow. God could only do what

01:43:35

His own creation allowed Him to do. But that's not what this says. We have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose, and He wants us to glory in the power and sovereignty of this one who has predestined us according to His purpose.

01:43:55

This is God's purpose, not our purpose. See, the mere foreknowledge view, you can't have

01:44:04

God's purpose being worked out in that, because that requires a decree. It makes it teleological.

01:44:10

It's going to a particular end, not just sort of a general end. Well, at the end, God sort of wins. Anyways, you know. You had a rough time getting there, buddy.

01:44:17

You got there eventually. No. The surety of our inheritance is due to the fact that we have been predestined according to His purpose, and then

01:44:29

He's described who works all things after the counsel of His will.

01:44:36

Not my will. That is not descriptive of a God who creates and then just through foreknowledge discovers what happens in His creation.

01:44:51

Sorry, that does not work. That does not fit. That is eisegesis, not exegesis.

01:44:57

That does not come out from the text. That has to be crammed into the text at the expense of its actual message.

01:45:07

That is a great reason for rejoicing on the part of believers.

01:45:15

A great reason for rejoicing. It is the very grounds of our certainty and our assurance.

01:45:21

Say in Ephesians 1 .11, and here's how it reads in the New American Standard also, we have obtained an inheritance having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.

01:45:30

They take that last phrase and say see, everything is after the counsel of His will, every minute point.

01:45:35

Now look at me. I'm talking about, look. Just look at me. They believe that I did my hand just like that.

01:45:41

That was predestined by God before the foundation of the world that I take my right hand instead of my left hand. Now you say you're being silly.

01:45:46

I'm not being silly. I'm talking about every minute thing that happens. In other words, as the statements of faith, all things whatsoever takes place in time.

01:46:00

What is that a recognition of? That is a recognition of our createdness and God's uncreatedness, and the fact that the very fabric of time flows from God's hand.

01:46:12

Now, the idea obviously that people want to communicate is that just turns us into non -relevant beings.

01:46:18

They don't recognize that the incarnation demonstrates that the fabric of time as decreed by God includes everything that is necessary to bring about His glorification.

01:46:36

And that means what takes place in time is important. Can what you wear one day, your clothing choices, your choice of direction in traveling to your work or your school, can that have eternal consequences?

01:46:52

You better believe it. What if Adolf Hitler had chosen to walk a different direction to school one morning, which involved getting run over by a truck?

01:47:04

You think God would be running around trying to come up with a new plan? Oh, God change everything now, because wow,

01:47:10

I thought that we were going to have this direction of history. Do you think

01:47:17

World War II caught God by surprise? Think of all this, all we think about World War II, all the death and destruction, and all the ways that God showed

01:47:26

Himself merciful to His people. Did we not learn anything from the Old Testament?

01:47:33

Did we not learn anything from the prophets? Look at what happened to Israel.

01:47:39

Look at Jerusalem lying in ruins. Didn't we learn anything from that? God better have had a purpose.

01:47:47

He says He did. He says He did. And when

01:47:53

He talks about and works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.

01:48:01

Hmm. Is the praise of God's glory up in the air as to whether it's going to happen or not, depending upon whether we cooperate?

01:48:07

That's what synergism says. That's what synergism says. I don't think that that's what the

01:48:13

New Testament says at all. They say it's predestined by God, including every sin. God ordains everything that is said, everything that happens.

01:48:23

Now when you start taking that to the nth degree, you see the fault with that. God now is responsible for our sin.

01:48:28

We are not responsible. They say, oh no, no, you're responsible. You did it. But then they say, but God made you do it. No, of course.

01:48:34

This is where Dr. Gaines shows himself to really not have taken the time, sadly, to have really listened,

01:48:43

I think, to Reformed folks. And I'll admit that I find it offensive when our own explanations are so easily available.

01:48:53

And I'm not talking about my books. Yeah, my books have been out there for a while. I don't expect Pastor Gaines to have ever heard of James White.

01:48:59

He probably has in just some passing, probably negative fashion from somebody. But, you know,

01:49:08

Piper's stuff is out there. Sproul's stuff is out there. Boice's stuff is out there.

01:49:16

It's not like it's hidden away someplace. So, why not at least accurately represent what we say?

01:49:24

He is going to over and over again say that God coerces us, that He forces us to do evil things.

01:49:33

And no Reformed person has ever said that. No meaningfully, meaningfully Reformed person has ever said that.

01:49:41

We recognize that God is restraining the evil of men.

01:49:48

Does Dr. Gaines believe God is restraining the evil of men? I sure hope so. I mean, the

01:49:54

Bible says that. So, clearly, God is restraining man's evil. He's violating man's free will by restraining his evil.

01:50:02

Is he not? And so, if He can restrain evil, then does

01:50:13

He have to force somebody to do evil? In fact, in the story of Joseph, when they sold

01:50:21

Joseph into slavery, do you remember something special there? The brothers wanted to kill him.

01:50:26

Some of the brothers wanted to kill him. They wanted to kill Joseph. God didn't allow it. That was not part of His plan. He kept them from doing what filled their hearts.

01:50:37

So, if we have a meaningful Biblical anthropology, we understand what the Bible really says about man, we're going to recognize

01:50:44

God doesn't have to put a gun in somebody's back to tell them to be evil. He's having to restrain their evil!

01:50:53

There isn't some forcing. There isn't some coercion. Every man who commits evil is acting upon what's in his own heart.

01:51:04

So, this whole idea of coercion is not what we believe. So, you just have to ask yourself the question, why?

01:51:11

And my experience, my experience is this, that folks like Pastor Gaines have been raised within a milieu where there are particularly authoritative people in their lives.

01:51:31

In his case, Herschel Hobbes. And, they are loathe to wander beyond the boundaries of what those particular authorities have delivered to them.

01:51:49

It's very clear to me that Norman Geisler, many decades ago, came to a traditional conclusion on the subject

01:51:57

Reformed Theology and my experience and everybody else's experience, perfect harmony, they've all said the same thing, whenever you start talking to Norm about something

01:52:06

Reformed, curtain goes down, lights go off, no can do.

01:52:13

No can do. And, those folks will just go on repeating the same things, they don't listen to what we're saying, they will misrepresent us, because they just don't believe that we have anything meaningful to say.

01:52:31

We have nothing to add to the conversation. I'd like to believe that's not the case with Dr.

01:52:37

Gaines. I would love to hear from him that he listened to this and went, I had never heard that before.

01:52:43

I'm going to look into this. Are there some books you'd recommend? Something like that. Even if he didn't change his views, at least more accurately represent what's being said.

01:52:54

But, I've been doing this a while now. I just got news for you, I can't go there. And they will take sermons like I'm preaching right now, and it's amazing to me how much time they spend just tearing apart little things.

01:53:06

But the bottom line is, logically, that's what they're saying. If you look at some of the translations of this...

01:53:12

Now notice he said, logically, that's what they're saying. So see, he knows we don't express ourselves in that way.

01:53:19

He knows we make significantly more careful statements that we believe we are forced to make by the text of scripture itself.

01:53:30

But he won't go there. Maybe it's just he doesn't feel that's appropriate in a sermon, it'd be too complicated for his people,

01:53:37

I don't know. I don't know what his motivations are. But all the time that they'll take, yeah, because I happen to think these things are important.

01:53:48

I will take a long time to respond to this. I think it's important. And I know that's why

01:53:55

I don't get to go to the big churches. Because I dare do this. It's politically incorrect to take a well -known pastor's sermon and analyze it and hold it up to biblical scrutiny.

01:54:06

That's not politically correct. That's not how you get the invites to the big conferences. Yeah, well, okay.

01:54:14

But when I get the little tweet, you know, when I responded to Michael Brown's Calvinist calling thing,

01:54:23

I spent a lot of time on that. I got a tweet from someone outside the country. You know who you are.

01:54:30

He said, thank you. Man, I needed that. Man, I did. Well, maybe that was the only person who was blessed by it.

01:54:35

I don't know. I can just do what

01:54:41

I do and hope for the best along those lines and God will bless it. Anyway, we go back to what you were saying.

01:54:49

If you look at some other translations of this... Now, by the way, Pet Peeve here, Pet Peeve Alert. We've only got a few minutes left in the program.

01:54:59

We're going to break it a quarter after. It'll make a full hour of Radio Free Geneva. And what will that make?

01:55:05

Two hours? Yeah, it'll be two full hours. It was mega, wasn't it? Pet Peeve Alert here.

01:55:15

For some reason, a lot of folks, when they start trying to get around the sovereignty of God, end up adopting really bad translations to do it.

01:55:28

And the one that Pastor Gaines seems to like a lot is the New Living Translation. Now, I'm sorry to the publishers and everything else.

01:55:38

I don't call it a translation. When you translate the biblical languages at a level below the level of complexity, grammar, and syntax of the original, that's no longer a translation.

01:55:53

That's a paraphrase. It's a simplified paraphrase. Might be useful for people first learning the language, but it's not a translation and should not be used for theology or preaching.

01:56:03

Unless you're preaching to an English as second language group, which he's not. But that's what's going to happen here.

01:56:10

Just happens to be one of those things that just makes me go, ugh. ...and

01:56:28

furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for He chose us in advance, and He makes everything work out.

01:56:33

He makes everything work out according to His plan. He doesn't cause everything, but in the end He makes everything work out according to His plan.

01:56:40

What's the difference? What is the comfort in having a

01:56:49

God who is running around just trying to make something good come out of the mess that His creation created?

01:56:56

Where's the comfort there? I mean, seriously. I don't understand that.

01:57:04

The text talks about who works all things after the counsel of His will. All of His actions are according to the counsel of His will.

01:57:12

His will is what's determinative. And I think that's what these folks are afraid of.

01:57:18

It's because if God's will is determinative, then I'm subject to that will. Now, these two translations lend themselves to what

01:57:25

I believe, and what I'm convinced most Southern Baptists believe at this point. God does not predestine every minute thing that happens, but He does take everything that does happen, even though He did not predestine it all, and because He's sovereign,

01:57:38

He works His will in spite of our sin and disobedience. Now, there is a

01:57:44

God to follow. There's the idea. There's the idea. There's a

01:57:53

God to follow because He created this mess. He does not have a purpose in this mess, but He's really good at repairing some messes, and He'll do

01:58:10

His best to make something good come out of the messes in your life if you will follow Him. And I just go, okay.

01:58:25

It's really hard to see how that presents a greater view of God, but there it is.

01:58:31

Romans 8 .28, you ever heard of this verse? We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love

01:58:38

God, to those who are called according to His purpose. He didn't cause all things, He causes all things to work together. He calls, He puts it all together.

01:58:44

Romans 8 .28 in the New Living Translation is so beautiful. We know that God causes everything to work together for good of those who love

01:58:50

God and are called according to His purpose for them. I don't see any difference personally in those translations.

01:58:57

And I don't see how you can understand any of that within the context of mere foreknowledge.

01:59:06

I mean, how can God be active in time at all in this viewpoint? I don't see how

01:59:12

He can do it. Because if He acts in time, He foreknew He was going to do it anyways, right? The only way that you can have a meaningful providence of God is if there is a decree of God that is that God decrees

01:59:27

His own actions in time. They are part of the fabric of time from eternity past. But alas, and alack, our time is up and we have only a certain direction, but we've already addressed a number of the issues.

01:59:41

We will continue at this point. We will have another Radio Free Geneva next week,

01:59:46

Lord willing, and we'll address more of Dr. Steve Gaines' sermon from back in September of 2013.

01:59:53

Thanks for listening. Lots of topics, important topics today, but I hope you've been blessed.

01:59:59

We'll be back again tomorrow on The Dividing Line and Thursday on The Dividing Line with Voti Baucom, Shai Lin, and Ivy Carnley.